Topic: Review of S.DICE - page 6. (Read 12297 times)

Erik owns at least some of that 90%, and I'd wager he owns a substantial amount. Which is good, entrepreneurs should be rewarded when they succeed

Thank you for this.  Appreciated, especially given that I was so critical of a blog of yours the other day!  I'm a bit slow picking up on who is who round here but I've just twigged SD was your baby so congratulations on that

The potential buyout aspect wasn't something I'd given much thought to.  Talking in terms of general Bitcoin companies I can see that as well as being a good thing for Bitcoin, as you suggest,  if those owning/running these businesses now are doing so with this in mind it could also lead to their not thinking as long-term as if they planned to run the business themselvesi ndefinitely.  Just as the odds of hitting 5 consecutive heads of a coin is a lot smaller if you're only planning on tossing 50 times rather than 5,000 times the same applies for instance to the odds of being hacked.  This may not be that relevant for SD but for other businesses if one is only planning to stay in the game and hold out until a takeover the attitude to security might not be the same as a business planning to stay for the long haul where the risks of being hit are much higher.

I'm assuming you know the mystery SD 90% holder so I wonder if there are plans to issue any information for shareholders other than financial info - such as plans as I discussed or intention to sell?  If you and others involved in the project are busy with other projects, given the business is growing without any active promotion it might be useful to know whether there is an intention to develop it so that if and when such an offer comes along it is more worth the potential competitor/buyer's while buying in rather than competing against.

BTW I notice the SD entry on the Bitcoin wiki is still pretty negative starting with the statement '...  is generally considered to be DDoS attack against the Bitcoin network'.  There are plenty who do see SD as spamming the blockchain but as molecular pointed out here, and others have elsewhere, it can also be looked at as providing a service as a catylist to the devs finding a solution they'd have needed to deal with sometime anyway.  I'm finding there is no consensus such as is implied on the wiki and maybe someone could amend it accordingly.

Ya, this has significantly shifted my interest in the Bitcoin implementation of 'crypto-accounting systems'.  My interest is still high of course, but it is weighted more toward seeking personal profits than it was, and analyzing the system as a general study for future independent efforts vs. hoping that evolutionary developments of Bitcoin proper hold much hope as leverage toward balancing the imbalances in our mainstream monetary solutions.  So it goes.
[/quote]

If I parsed this correctly you said something like: "Due to this I don't think bitcoin can save the world any more but still make me rich"?

Blockchain bloat will have to be dealt with at some point anyway. SDICE is just accellerating this a bit. It was clear a long time ago that the "p2p nature" (as in: every customer runs a node) of Bitcoin was going to be "reduced".

[/quote]

Ya, this has significantly shifted my interest in the Bitcoin implementation of 'crypto-accounting systems'.  My interest is still high of course, but it is weighted more toward seeking personal profits than it was, and analyzing the system as a general study for future independent efforts vs. hoping that evolutionary developments of Bitcoin proper hold much hope as leverage toward balancing the imbalances in our mainstream monetary solutions.  So it goes.

Blockchain bloat will have to be dealt with at some point anyway. SDICE is just accellerating this a bit. It was clear a long time ago that the "p2p nature" (as in: every customer runs a node) of Bitcoin was going to be "reduced".

Some of the Bitcoin dev team have mentioned the strain SD puts on the nascent Bitcoin solution, and it is blamed for a fair part of the blockchain bloat.  Even so, it does not seem to be enough to have induced a workable merkle pruning scheme yet.  I do hope that such a thing is even practical.  It seems a shame to me that so much effort was put into the GUI client a year and a half ago vs. some of the more foundational aspect of the Bitcoin solution since the end result seems to be that the QT-client (and P2P nature of Bitcoin itself) is increasingly unpopular due to bloat.

One of the earliest concerns of mine regarding Bitcoin is that it did not seem to have enough protection against 'denial of service' attacks, though I still have not studied the issue in great detail.

I would be leery of investing in SD in case the evolution of the Bitcoin solution injects measures which impact the practicality of SD working as it does (however that is.)  Maybe SD could adapt.  I wouldn't know.

This is a good point, but it is not specific to SatoshiDICE. Every Bitcoin company faces the looming possibility of more professional outfits recognizing the huge potential of this system, dropping a million or two to build a superior competitor, and winning the business.

While this is a challenge Bitcoin companies all face, it is immeasurably good for Bitcoin itself.

Key here, however, is that because of the technical nature of Bitcoin systems, it will often make sense for these outsiders to buy out the current leaders because they have the technical expertise for these systems. Bitcoin is dangerous to use if you don't know how to use it properly... and a naive company that drops big money into this may fall victim to any number of problems because they weren't experts in Bitcoin itself.

I will simply state here that if a sale of SD happens to some outside party, the current MPEx shareholders will receive buyout funds proportionately to their shares. In other words, if an outsider moves into this industry, there is a good chance SD would be bought out, and then S.DICE holders still end up winning (perhaps winning big).

Yes and this is very important. I've worked with some of the brilliant statisticians from within this very community to understand these risks of the "player with a huge bankroll" and taken steps to mitigate that risk.

Suffice to say that the numbers in SatoshiDICE are not arbitrary - the max bets, the formulas for determining them, the way transactions are processed, how the coins are stored, etc... lots of work has gone into making the system sustainable and reducing vulnerabilities.

For now SatoshiDICE has got fantastic free publicity:

• The proportion of transactions v. all non-SatoshiDICE transactions showing on Blockchain.info et al;
  
• the debate surrounding its affect on the blockchain;
  
• that it's one of a few 'big' successful ventures in the whole Bitcoin marketplace let alone in the gambling Bitcoin marketplace;
  
• the controversy regarding its legality or the legality of its use in various jurisdictions and the philosophical debate surrounding that;
  
• S.DICE shares being traded, discussion of that, of counter-party risks and the topics that are being discussed in this thread;
  
• All the above also keep discussion of some sort about SatoshiDICE almost perpetually in the limelight at bitcointalk and everywhere else Bitcoin is discussed.
  

All of the above means it currently has a tremendous advantage over any copycat newcomer coming into the field.

However, as a potential investor, I'd like some idea as to whether there are plans to invest in protecting this immense market lead.  There are some gambling outfits out there valued at magnitudes of order larger than SatoshiDICE who could potentially overnight launch a competing service with a slick marketing campaign and loss-leading incentives.  The tiny costs SatoshiDICE manages for such a huge turnover is fantastic but existing companies who are potential competitiors have customer service, PR and marketing departments and budgets.

Do we know whether the 90% holder is happy to leave SatoshiDICE as it is, prepared to accept a substantial loss of market share and a potential decimation of turnover should/when this happens in order keep costs and risks minimal or is he/she up for the challenge of preempting one of the 'big boys' coming in to try and crush it?  I'm also intrigued if this challenge were taken up at which point would it be profitable to take marketing into the non-Bitcoin world resulting in SatoshiDICE bringing newbies into Bitcoin?

you're right. except some particularly non-risk-averse strategies can inflate both expected value and risk. the martingales are a perfect example of this. but your critique gets to the bottom of this-- these games are all negative ev games and im surprised it gets as much traffic as it does.

i don't see people hanging out in garages betting on cointosses, so what's the difference?

Just a heads up; Havelock has put up an additional 100 shares of S.DICE for 0.48.

It's incredibly easy to get set up and buy/sell shares on the website.

Marting Gale is just a "gamblers fallacy", but i believe a lot of "believers" run bots with it. Unless satoshi dice isn't random, no system will be any better than placing completely random bets at random times.

http://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/betting-systems/martingale/
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

Since Satoshi Dice has incorporated a "maximum bet" feature for any given line, it eliminates the possibility of someone with a huge bankroll whittling away their funds using a Martingale strategy. I've only spot checked the math on their odds and payouts (not even considering the transaction fees) but I didn't find anywhere that it might be feasible to do so.

As a share holder, I encourage anyone to go prove me wrong.

Also yes, I'm sure the majority of their business comes from the type that would buy scratch off tickets every day. Like they always say, lottery should not be played for investment purposes... unless you are investing in the lottery itself.

gambling is addictive and satoshi dice is one of the most competitive games in terms of the share it takes from the players.

and yes: people use martingale with s.dice (even using bots)

Are they stupid? I'd say no. Some win, some lose.

i dont mean to stumble blindly into this thread, but on the topic of satoshi dice, i don't really understand where all the money comes from. who would play this without some kind of martingale strategy? are there people using this site just as stupid as people who buy scratchoff lottos everyday?

Well the problems we encounter are many and varied. For one, a "should" could never be "a statement of fact". This distinction is about as old as bacon. For the other, you seem to have missed polysemy in my statement, and along with it a world of humor. Would you say "small child" denotes a short child or a young child?

All this proven incompetence in decoding messages aside, I very much doubt your discussion of "business" has any basis in fact whatsoever. Since I'm not terribly inclined to discuss business with Kramerica Industries scions, I guess we can leave this as it is.

Erm the statement right above my post? It's not rocket science. But let me spell it out.



Charging such a high one-time fee as the only way to conduct business (as opposed to a cheaper option for large customers) as opposed to a way of charging that is proportional to the use (aka a percentage on each trade) is a rather shortsighted way of conducting business but as I stated that is your right. Please, however, if you say silly things such as: "small investors should probably stick with school" because if no-one speaks against it it looks like we are agreeing with you and this might discourage people out of making investment proportional to their wealth.

Because of automation we no longer need much fixed costs (if any) for services such as these. You are making unnecessary artificial thresholds and creating inefficiencies in the market. Because of this I was rather disappointed with Eric Voorhees (who I hold in high regard) choosing MPEX for Satoshi Dice.

There's a difference between small investors and small investments. Sarcasm works best when it doesn't backfire miserably.


Context is your friend. What are you on about?


Fee is 30 BTC (25 if you use a referral).

If you trade 2-3k BTCs' worth in your entire account history, you've paid for it. If you're charged more than 1% to trade, it's going to take even less but in general as simple rule of thumb, if your total turnover is in the thousands range you should get an account. If not, no.


That made zero sense. The difference between using MPEx and using a PT is the trade fee. MPEx charges 0.2% sell side only.

If you're trying to account for slippage that's going to be really very difficult to do, but if we go with the observed record (S.DICE pt on GLBSE was off by as much as 100% at times) anything over 100 BTC justifies an account on the liquid venue.

 

You lose 5% with both of those "pass throughs". Also check coinbr.com